Hagel, day two: Turns out opposing abortion in cases of rape isn’t so extreme after all

posted at 6:03 pm on January 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

I knew he served with distinction in Vietnam. I’d forgotten that he also served with distinction in the war on women.

When he announced his candidacy for Senate, Hagel said that he opposed abortion except to protect the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. Hagel decided he didn’t believe that exclusion for rape were necessary after studying the issue near the end of his campaign.

“I am pro-life with one exception — the life of the mother. I oppose taxpayer funded abortions. We must promote adoption and support the strengthening of American families. I will vote with and support the pro-life movement,” Hagel said in a piece of 1996 campaign literature, according to the Omaha World Herald.

Then Senate-candidate Hagel said that he “tightened” his position on abortion after he said he discovered that abortion in the case of rape and incest are “rare” according to multiple local press reports.

“As I looked at those numbers, if I want to prevent abortions, I don’t think those two exceptions are relevant,” Hagel said, according to the Omaha paper.

More relevantly, he also voted to prohibit abortions in military hospitals, a position that’s already been duly shrugged off by the loyal party soldiers of NARAL. Who cares how he used to vote in the Senate, the thinking goes, when we know he’ll dutifully implement whatever policy Obama wants as SecDef? And that’s true. To believe that this is an issue for Hagel, you have to believe that his commitment to pro-life principle exceeds his desire to have a cabinet position. Anyone believe that? He’s famous for adapting to the evolving conventional wisdom on foreign policy. Why wouldn’t he adapt to the conventional wisdom of the administration he’s joining too?

Meanwhile, Charles Cooke asks:

If a Bush appointee had said the things Hagel did on abortion, gays, and the draft, would Left be fine with him? I think not.

The most enjoyable consolation of Hagel being nominated is seeing how much slack his criticisms of Israel and the Iraq war have bought him with the left on domestic policy. He’s not just off the reservation on abortion and gays; he also voted against Dianne Feinstein’s attempt to revive the assault-weapons ban in 2004. But the dreaded wingnuts and neocons are lined up against him, and he certainly will prove useful in giving Obama “bipartisan” cover to slash the Pentagon’s budget in the years ahead, so they’re going to give him a wide berth no matter how many heresies pile up. (Obama mouthpiece Bill Burton went on TV just this morning to crow about the “huge cuts” that are coming to defense under Hagel.) He’s being hired to carry out someone else’s policy, not enact his own, so in theory none of this is a big deal. In theory. In practice, it’s awfully hard to square with basic partisan sentiment that the other side’s positions, especially on social issues, aren’t just mistaken and harmful but immoral or even monstrous. Chuck Hagel has (or had) pretty much all the same cultural views as the most “evil” conservatives do. How’d we get to the point where liberals are cool with having an evil SecDef? More grumbling about neocons, Chuck, stat.

Based on what I’ve seen of Hagel, I’d say that the GOP should let him be confirmed. We’re not going to get someone that we really want on foreign policy, and the people that he most infuriates are the gay lobby and abortionists. I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

Based on what I’ve seen of Hagel, I’d say that the GOP should let him be confirmed. We’re not going to get someone that we really want on foreign policy, and the people that he most infuriates are the gay lobby and abortionists. I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

All hail the glory touch of Obama. Even when touching a BS pile it turns to wonderfulness and nothing is every wrong with a person so blessed with his golden touch. Or something like that. The simple touch could wipe away all sin of the past.

Time for RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” or something like that as well.

Hagel, day two: Turns out opposing abortion in cases of rape isn’t so extreme after all

Good thing ace, the GOP tards, and the rest of the squish-crew went after Akin like it was the end of the world. Thanks, guys. You been really hepful.

Friggin idiots … as if there was ever any question. Whether someone agrees with the rape exception or not what the squishes did during the campaign was stupid and near-treasonous. But, that’s what they do.

“In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Oct. 2, 2008.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when the 111th Congress convenes
next year, the Senate will be without Senator CHUCK
HAGEL. Senator HAGEL has decided to retire from the Senate
after two terms. His career in public service, however, long
predates his service in Congress.
Like many public servants, Senator HAGEL entered politics
after first serving the Nation in the Armed Forces. He saw
combat in Vietnam and served with valor, receiving two Purple
Hearts among other decorations. He would later serve as
a congressional staff member, and in 1981, President Reagan
tapped him as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans’ Administration.
When Senator HAGEL came to the Senate, his actions often
reflected his experience as a combat veteran. He did what he
believed was best for the men and women in uniform, and
he defended his positions forcefully.
Senator HAGEL has continued to protect and defend the
country, notably through his work on the Foreign Relations
and Intelligence Committees. He had strong opinions, and he
was never shy about letting them be known.
I wish Senator HAGEL all the best in his pursuits after the
Senate. I expect that he will devote much of his time to his
wife Lilibet and their family, but I imagine he will save some
time to follow his Nebraska Cornhuskers.

I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Yup, make liberals swallow every little humiliating piece in public.

the_nile on January 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Other than the fact that it absolutely will not work. You keep confusing the Fifth Column Treasonous Media and the Marxists Liberal Democrats with individuals that have morals and ethics. The Fifth Column Treasonous Media and the Marxists Liberal Democrats only have one single philosophical, moral or ethical principal that they adhere to.

The End Justifies the Means.

What that means is there is no lie, no deception, no distortion, no crime and no atrocity that is off limits to them. They have zero sense of shame or embarrassment, they have no humility. They only care about winning and they absolutely do not care what they have to do to win. They have no remorse and no pity and they will not stop until they get what they want.

So no, they categorically will not allow Hagel to be used against them regardless of the lies they have to tell to prevent it.

Based on what I’ve seen of Hagel, I’d say that the GOP should let him be confirmed. We’re not going to get someone that we really want on foreign policy, and the people that he most infuriates are the gay lobby and abortionists. I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion. Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Your comment misses the point. The case against Hagel is that he’s dumb. He voted for the Iraq War and then voted against what was needed to win it. Not only did he oppose the Surge, he stupidly claimed it was the worst strategic mistake in the history of the country. He’s left of Obama on defense, as impossible as that may seem.

What that means is there is no lie, no deception, no distortion, no crime and no atrocity that is off limits to them. They have zero sense of shame or embarrassment, they have no humility. They only care about winning and they absolutely do not care what they have to do to win. They have no remorse and no pity and they will not stop until they get what they want.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:32 PM

i can see the roaming bands of bloodthirsty granolaheads from my window as i type.

i can see the roaming bands of bloodthirsty granolaheads from my window as i type.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I guess you live near an abortion clinic, perhaps even one that specializes in “late-term” murder and leaving infants on shelves to die if they don’t cooperate with the abortion – as is advocated by your insane Indonesian.

Or maybe you just live near an Occupooper rape center and terrorism training facility?

What that means is there is no lie, no deception, no distortion, no crime and no atrocity that is off limits to them. They have zero sense of shame or embarrassment, they have no humility. They only care about winning and they absolutely do not care what they have to do to win. They have no remorse and no pity and they will not stop until they get what they want.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:32 PM

i can see the roaming bands of bloodthirsty granolaheads from my window as i type.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 6:36 PM

And as if on cue… The perfect example shows up. Utterly without morals or ethics, completely lacking any sense of decency, and complete sociopathic liar who revels in the feces of her own hypocrisy.

Your comment misses the point. The case against Hagel is that he’s dumb. He voted for the Iraq War and then voted against what was needed to win it. Not only did he oppose the Surge, he stupidly claimed it was the worst strategic mistake in the history of the country. He’s left of Obama on defense, as impossible as that may seem.

Basilsbest on January 8, 2013 at 6:33 PM

I’m aware of that. And by that standard, we have a grossly incompetent Vice President (not that I’m denying that, mind you). We’re not going to get someone that we think is a foreign policy genius. The only reasonable way we could expect that would be if we had a Republican president, so what we should be looking to do is get as much value as possible given the position we’re in. The reason it was smart to shoot down Rice (aside from her being incompetent) was that it means Kerry’s the likely pick for State, giving us a chance for a special election in Massachusetts in which Scott Brown (hardly my favorite Republican) could recapture a senate seat.

And to SWalker above, sure, they can scream and whine and moan and say it’s not true. But we’ll have the truth on our side, and they can’t stop us from speaking when they invite us on their shows. I’m not saying that this will create some sort of massive swing in public opinion. All I’m saying is that it gives us a card to play.

Don’t worry – Hagel’s position on whatever issue, will be exactly what obama tells him it will be. We can be 100% positive that obama would have never chosen Hagel, unless he knew that Hagel would toe the line.

I wouldn’t say we had much of any truth on our side. We had Romney — not exactly the font of consistency, sincerity, or truth.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Dude, wake up and cast off the delusions. Romney wasn’t the problem. The problem was the Fifth Column Treasonous Media. Learn some history, the German people followed Hitler right up to the very end, and they did so because mass media propaganda really does work.

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media sided with Obama because he is a damned Marxist just like them. The Fifth Column Treasonous Media point blank lied to the American people and not only did the useless idiots in the Democrat party slurp it up as fast as they could, so did half of the Republicans and most of the Independents.

The bottom line is this, no one who refuses to admit that they have a problem ever seeks treatment for that problem. Your problem, my problem and every other American citizens problem is, we have been indoctrinated our entire lives with Marxist propaganda, to the point that 99% of our fellow countrymen not only do not know it, but get offended when you tell them.

If you honestly think Mitt Romney was the problem, then you live in indoctrinated la-la fantasy land and quite honestly, their probably is nothing that will ever bring you out of it.

Utterly without morals or ethics, completely lacking any sense of decency, and complete sociopathic liar who revels in the feces of her own hypocrisy.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM

i see a great future for you as party leader. all you need now is to somehow break out of the confines of the hotair comment system with your awesome oratory. to envision you delivering those lines, fist clenched, teeth bared, eyes fixed skyward…

Either way, Pray for our troops. They are going to be under major stress with cuts. It’s why I left under clinton. I couldn’t do my job. Yet junior officers were pressuring me to say I could to cover their own asses. I refused. Made for interesting moments.

I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Yup, make liberals swallow every little humiliating piece in public.

the_nile on January 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Other than the fact that it absolutely will not work. You keep confusing the Fifth Column Treasonous Media and the Marxists Liberal Democrats with individuals that have morals and ethics. The Fifth Column Treasonous Media and the Marxists Liberal Democrats only have one single philosophical, moral or ethical principal that they adhere to.

The End Justifies the Means.

What that means is there is no lie, no deception, no distortion, no crime and no atrocity that is off limits to them. They have zero sense of shame or embarrassment, they have no humility. They only care about winning and they absolutely do not care what they have to do to win. They have no remorse and no pity and they will not stop until they get what they want.

So no, they categorically will not allow Hagel to be used against them regardless of the lies they have to tell to prevent it.

If you honestly think Mitt Romney was the problem, then you live in indoctrinated la-la fantasy land and quite honestly, their probably is nothing that will ever bring you out of it.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM

I honestly think Mitt Romney was the problem. He was a serial flip-flopper, from abortion, to gay marriage, to guns, to cap-and-trade. He was notorious for telling anyone what they wanted to hear. That was the first aspect which was wrong with him.

The second aspect was him being easily typecast in the role of sneering plutocrat. From not caring about the very poor, to liking being able to fire people, and most of all, the 47% remark (as well as a Bain backstory), he came off like a corporate jerk. You may blame the media for blowing those stories out of proportion, but the fact remains that he dug his own grave with those comments.

And third, when Romney had the truth on his side, he never used it. Benghazi was a major debacle, but what happened in the third debate? Romney received a question on Benghazi, and transformed it into some generic question on Middle East policy in which he said that we ought to spend more money on foreign aid to promote gender equality and education. I mean, what the hell kind of answer is that?

i continue to support his nomination, notwithstanding the shocking revelation that several times, he successfully ran for the senate seat from a state so deep red it has only ever elected conservative republicans (though nobody knows for how long, since history forgot to record when nebraska became a state). part of the reason for my support, in fact, is that nebraska, where license plates say “are you lost?,” will can finally claim with some plausibility to be known for something.

Not every trouble of Romney’s can be foisted on the media. At some point a candidate bears the responsibility for the utterances and performances of his own campaign. He had a gubernatorial record rife with liberalism and ran a lousy campaign.

His abortion stance is relevent how, exactly? Will he be in charge of womens’ health over at Defense? Is this some sort of “You shouldn’t be against his nomination because he thinks babies should live just like you” propaganda lameness?

He will be in the Department of Defense or as we should call it, The War Department. He has a record of wanting to leave our most stable ally in the Middle East – Israel – alone amongst the wolves. He also has no problems instituting deep cuts in our military. His decisions could be HUGE in these areas.

Not every trouble of Romney’s can be foisted on the media. At some point a candidate bears the responsibility for the utterances and performances of his own campaign. He had a gubernatorial record rife with liberalism and ran a lousy campaign.

His abortion stance is relevent how, exactly? Will he be in charge of womens’ health over at Defense? Is this some sort of “You shouldn’t be against his nomination because he thinks babies should live just like you” propaganda lameness?

…

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Not about him, its about the argument. You can’t vote for him and then turn around and say opposition to abortion in the case of rape and incest is wrong.

The point isnt about Hagel. Its about future strong pro-life candidates.

i continue to support his nomination, notwithstanding the shocking revelation that several times, he successfully ran for the senate seat from a state so deep red it has only ever elected conservative republicans (though nobody knows for how long, since history forgot to record when nebraska became a state). part of the reason for my support, in fact, is that nebraska, where license plates say “are you lost?,” will can finally claim with some plausibility to be known for something.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Pssst… Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was a DEMOCRAT. You wouldn’t have Obamacare without him.

Wanna take another shot at being right for once this year — although you still have 357 days left to SCORE, genius?

Yeah, no big deal. When it could cost Romney the presidency (thank you Todd Akin!) then it IS a big deal. But when it could adversely impact an Obama pick . . . [crickets]

JustTruth101 on January 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM

You do understand the Press is just an arm of the DNC right?

I mean expecting them to do anything other than spin the news in the most favorably way possible to the Democrats is naive to the max.

Your type of thinking is what lost Mitt the election. Mitt seemed to think he could gain the approval of the Press if he became enough of a Democrat in his plans. If he would rail against Republicans. Well he did rail against Republicans (conservative ones) and of course he lost. He then blamed those he told to go to Hades for not voting for him. Talk about stupid.

You rail against those in your own party you tell those of like thinking to not even think about voting for you. Never alienate your base as you will lose most of the time if you do and 100% of the time if running for President. Both McCain and Romney did this and both lost.

Based on what I’ve seen of Hagel, I’d say that the GOP should let him be confirmed. We’re not going to get someone that we really want on foreign policy, and the people that he most infuriates are the gay lobby and abortionists. I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

You think the GOP can somehow use this guy as a playing card against… uh… …what?

They are doing that to YOU right now, kiddie. They want to put someone into power who will be left of Obama and do every single thing Obama wants him to do. And they plan to get him in by getting people like you to go for the nomination because of some 1 dollar chip you think you might be able to somehow cash in later in some inconsequential blog discussion.

And I can tell you where that conversation will go, too. They get a two-fer because they get to say that Obama is such an open-minded guy that he doesn’t let personal beliefs about above-his-paygrade decisions be a limitation when choosing the right man for the job.

Does your mommy know you are on her computer or is she not home from yoga yet?

If you honestly think Mitt Romney was the problem, then you live in indoctrinated la-la fantasy land and quite honestly, their probably is nothing that will ever bring you out of it.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM

This has to be the most ignorant statement I have seen from you.

First of all the Press is always going to be 100% in the tank for the Democrats from now on. There is no chance they will ever change back to where they were only 80% in the tank.

But to then say Mitt was not the problem when we have 100% proof he was not electable even against a most unpopular President. In fact the least popular to win a second term. Insanity.

Especially when you consider that 2010 Tea Party was born to tank Obama Care yet Mitt Romney did a test run of it in Mass. You may argue they were different but the fact is Americans wanted nothing to do with Romney or Obama Care.

How exactly? He will get confirmed. That’s a done deal. But his confirmation bolsters a position the Left is intolerant of and takes a pro life argument into the mainstream of political discourse. It can no longer be thought of as extreme.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Looking at this one confirmation, at this particular time it may be extraneous but in the long view it does nothing but hamstring liberals.

You think the GOP can somehow use this guy as a playing card against… uh… …what?

They are doing that to YOU right now, kiddie. They want to put someone into power who will be left of Obama and do every single thing Obama wants him to do. And they plan to get him in by getting people like you to go for the nomination because of some 1 dollar chip you think you might be able to somehow cash in later in some inconsequential blog discussion.

And I can tell you where that conversation will go, too. They get a two-fer because they get to say that Obama is such an open-minded guy that he doesn’t let personal beliefs about above-his-paygrade decisions be a limitation when choosing the right man for the job.

Does your mommy know you are on her computer or is she not home from yoga yet?

sheesh

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Again, you are not going to get someone you think is a great guy for the job. You’re just not. End of story. So the concerns about the administrative responsibilities and competency play second-fiddle here.

Next, in so far as Hagel projects weakness abroad, you also get the chance to make the case that the GOP is more trustworthy on foreign policy. Additionally, in so far as you can point to his past, you can also further advance the cause on social issues.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Looking at this one confirmation, at this particular time it may be extraneous but in the long view it does nothing but hamstring liberals.

2lbsTest on January 8, 2013 at 7:39 PM

It’s self indulgent twaddle and part of what is wrong with politics.

It doesn’t hamstring liberals at all and it is not relevant to his suitability for the job. There are a lot of reasons related to the job that suggest Bagel is a terrible choice, his position on abortion is not one of them and it’s self-indulgent to make a big deal out of it. The war on women was and remains total BS – this is worth a quick crack and that’s about all.

Transfer carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something respected and revered over to something else in order to make the latter acceptable….

What is the meaning of the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to Transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the respected and revered thing, person, or institution?

In other words, leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the propagandist’s proposal viewed alone?

“A lie,” wrote Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), “is believed because of the unconditional and insolent inflexibility with which it is propagated and because it takes advantage of the sentimental and extreme sympathies of the masses. … Therefore, something always is retained even from the most impudent of lies.” And lies, we must remember, take a vast number of forms, the chief seven of which are the unfair applications of our seven Propaganda Devices.

You think if Obama wanted him to replace Sibelius at HHS that he might suddenly “discover” that he was wrong?

Again,you are not going to get someone you think is a great guy for the job. You’re just not. End of story. So the concerns about the administrative responsibilities and competency play second-fiddle here.

Next, in so far as Hagel projects weakness abroad, you also get the chance to make the case that the GOP is more trustworthy on foreign policy. Additionally, in so far as you can point to his past, you can also further advance the cause on social issues.

This is basic tactics.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 7:40 PM

What you have going on there is your basic STUPIDITY.

I won’t get someone I think is a great guy for the job. The probability of that is 100% if I roll over and accept him. Accepting him for your reasons would just make me a moron.

Let’s see, I get to say the GOP is more trustworthy and advance the cause on social issues?

You don’t sound like much of a patriot to me. Instead, you sound like a progressive toady fresh out of liberal arts school planted here online to dribble stinky brown nuggets of what in Unicorn-land probably sounded impressive. Here in America where people live and die for freedom and honor, we call it horse sh!t.

You don’t sound like much of a patriot to me. Instead, you sound like a progressive toady fresh out of liberal arts school planted here online to dribble stinky brown nuggets of what in Unicorn-land probably sounded impressive. Here in America where people live and die for freedom and honor, we call it horse sh!t.

It doesn’t hamstring liberals at all and it is not relevant to his suitability for the job. There are a lot of reasons related to the job that suggest Bagel is a terrible choice, his position on abortion is not one of them and it’s self-indulgent to make a big deal out of it. The war on women was and remains total BS – this is worth a quick crack and that’s about all.

CorporatePiggy on January 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Still not my point. He sucks. But he’s going to get confirmed. Deal with it.

At least make it a point that pro-life positions are not verboten. And legitimize those views. You can’t win a war without winning it’s battles. It’s not this confirmation I care about, it’s how we build stronger foundations for the conservative base.

And your reasoning behind insisting that this is so is… what, exactly? And if you torpedo Hagel’s nomination, who is so much better that you think is waiting in the wings, hmmm?

I’m urging you to salvage what you can. You’re not offering an alternative.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 8:09 PM

I offer you nothing. Unless I am making the nominations for the administration this year. Did I miss the memo?

You, though you do not realize it, also offer nothing but future talking points. And when Hagel guts the system and has a Benghazi or Fast and Furiuos moment of his own concerning Israel, I’ll get to do what with my talking points? Hmmmm? Can I just forget about xxx number of Israelis hurt, wounded, whatever, and tout his pro-life cred? If anything, having a pro-life boob like Hagel screw-up (as I suspect he will) will hurt your precious cause.

A smart person would hold out for someone who has not voiced antipathy for an important ally that sits surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood neo-nazis. A true patriot would understand that. You should take your partner, the other troll, 2lbtest, and peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

LOL, screw this, I officially support Hagel’s nomination now. Obama is trying to drive a wedge between Republicans with this pick, but the Israel lobby, the gay lobby, and the abortion lobby are the ones looking like complete hypocrites. He even voted in favor of the Iraq war!

The GOP would be complete morons to fight this nomination. Question him during the confirmation process, remind everyone on record what he stands for, then abstain from voting and let Democrats vote to confirm him or embarrass their messiah.

I offer you nothing. Unless I am making the nominations for the administration this year. Did I miss the memo?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 8:33 PM

In other words, you don’t have a better idea.

You, though you do not realize it, also offer nothing but future talking points. And when Hagel guts the system and has a Benghazi or Fast and Furiuos moment of his own concerning Israel, I’ll get to do what with my talking points? Hmmmm? Can I just forget about xxx number of Israelis hurt, wounded, whatever, and tout his pro-life cred? If anything, having a pro-life boob like Hagel screw-up (as I suspect he will) will hurt your precious cause.

Hardly. Causes are considered in isolation of one another. His conduct as secretary of state will affect the Democrats on foreign policy. It won’t have any bearing on social issues. His past voting record on abortion, and the fact that Obama didn’t consider that a disqualifier from the position, however, will.

A smart person would hold out for someone who has not voiced antipathy for an important ally that sits surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood neo-nazis. A true patriot would understand that. You should take your partner, the other troll, 2lbtest, and peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

“How is it on stains?”

So in other words, a smart person is going to hold out for a nominee that will never come. Obama is anti-Israel. We get that. We can expect his nominee to be anti-Israel. That goes with the territory.

A smart person with integrity would not lend support for a nominee he expected would do more evil than good.

All this talking point nonsense is just liberal troll bs.

If any of you think that you will convince any honest conservative to vote for the man with these silly arguments, you are fools. That includes the bandwagon troll that snuck in here late.

I realize that the progs want to get at least one person to say they support this jackass. It’s like getting one GOP House Representative to vote for a bad bill and then forever calling it a bipartisan victory. Not true, but accurate I believe is the term.

What you have all left out of your sales pitch is that good press and bad press each only flow one way.

Which helped Mitt Romney in the media?
1. That he hired a lot of women while in office
or
2. “binders full of women”?

Which hurt Eric Holder?

1. The forcing of gun dealers to sell weapons to known drug running desperados by threatening to revoke their licenses and so threatening their livelihoods, allowing the guns to cross the border untracked, thereby being used in a killing spree that continues to this day, and then trying to blame the gun owners and gun makers and then raiding the very shop owners they had coerced in the first place?

or

Illegally dropping a federal voter-intimidation case that had already gone to trial and had been decided against a club-wielding thug who stood out in the street taunting voters because they were of a different race? The video of some of the voter intimidation can be found on youtube, but as progs, you don’t want to know, so you won’t bother, I know.

If you answered the above questions, you should see a pattern. A pattern that puts a lie to your whole bullsh!t argument.

Any conservative still here will now see how ridiculous your talking points are and see you for the very lightweight trolls you are. Especially if they go back over the thread.

The script was weak and the acting was terrible. I like the names, though. Every bit as blendy as “Ford Prefect”.

for the nominee himself: Borat, with that old folk hit from his homeland “Throw The Jew Down The Well’;

for NOW and all the other “war against women” propagandists from the late, lamented campaign as they swallow. . .their whistles regarding the nominee’s inconvenient past utterances: Simon and Garfunkel, “The Sound of Silence.”

In defense of opposing abortion in the case of rape: if you feel human beings are capable of unconditional love, and that society is best defined by how it takes care of its weakest and most vulnerable, then regardless of whether you’re black or white, rich or poor, born to a married or single mom, or if the mom is 16 and drug addicted or 42 and the kid’s got developmental issues, or whether it was an act of love or an act of unspeakable violence… you still count. All are welcome. Otherwise you engage in conditional love. Conditional love is what permits people to justify horrible acts, like stoning women for being gang raped, or shooting women for trying to get an education, or honor killing your daughter for making eye contact with a Jewish boy, or demanding a baby be sentenced to death because their dad is a rapist, or telling a mom her rape doesn’t count because the baby that resulted that she chose to keep has been the biggest blessing in her life (and that happens a lot).

Akin’s position isn’t pro-life. Akin’s position is that if the woman gets pregnant than it’s her own fault. That doesn’t make you pro-life. It makes you a d-bag.

Murdoch got wrapped up in Akin’s crap sandwich and took the fall.

And before anyone says I don’t understand rape, I’ve had friends of mine who’ve suffered from being raped; including one friend who was raped at knifepoint by an intruder on her own kitchen floor.

Hagel is an awful choice for many reasons, and conservatives need to go on offense on this one. If you’re looking to fight the cultural war issues here, then point out the fallacy of the left’s position: it never mattered to a leftist where one stood on an issue as much as with whom they stand.

This is rich. At least he speaks his mind. A woman warrior no less.
Hagel’s only reason for being nominated is to get even with all those pentagon brass for shipping him to ‘Nam back in the day. With Hagel in charge, and you are pentagon brass – – prepare to be treated like Lance Corporals. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing either.